Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hariom vs State Of Haryana on 19 February, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022997
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-61734-2023
Reserved on: 15.02.2024
Pronounced on: 19.02.2024
2024:PHHC: 022997
HARIOM
. . . . PETITIONER
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA
. . . . RESPONDENT
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
****
Argued by: - Mr. Pradeep Virk, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
By way of this petition filed under Section 439 CrPC,
petitioner prays for his release on regular bail in case FIR No.69 dated
13.03.2023 registered under Sections 302/201 IPC at Police Station Sadar
Gohana, District Sonepat.
2. Status report dated 14.02.2024, by way of an affidavit of
Somvir Singh, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gohana-II, Sonipat,
has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State of Haryana and the same is
taken on record.
3.1 As per prosecution version, on 11.06.2021, information was
received by the police that Rinku son of Vishnu Dutt, resident of village
Sikandarpur Majra, District Sonipat was brought to the hospital having
suffered injuries. Police reached the hospital, but no person/witness was
found there. On 12.06.2021, police again visited the hospital, where
Poonam wife of deceased Rinku met the police officials and made
statement, as per which her husband i.e. deceased Rinku was habitual of
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 04:15:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022997
CRM-M-61734-2023 2024:PHHC: 022997
consuming liquor. She and her husband were residing separately from her
parents-in-law. On 11.06.2021, her husband had gone to meet his parents.
She went there to call him. When she was returning along with her
husband-Rinku, Rinku fell down in metalled street in front of the house and
suffered injuries on backside of his head. Her father-in-law shifted Rinku to
PGI, Khanpur Kalan, where doctor declared him brought dead. She stated
that her husband had died having sustained injuries due to fall in the street
under influence of liquor and that nobody was at fault and so, she did not
want any action to be taken. Said statement made by Poonam was supported
by Vishnu Dutt-father of the deceased and also by Savitri wife of Krishan.
3.2 As no offence was found to be made out in view of the
aforesaid statement, DDR No.12 dated 12.06.2021 was entered in Police
Station Sadar, Gohana. Inquest report under Section 174 CrPC was
conducted. However, the postmortem examination of the dead body of the
deceased revealed as many as 19 external injuries on his person. Cause of
the death was opined to be head injury coupled with manual strangulation.
All the injuries were opined to be ante-mortem in nature, recent in duration
and caused by blunt force and that manner of death was homicidal. The
Viscera was preserved for chemical analysis and histopathological
examination. After receiving the reports from the FSL, opinion of the
Board of Doctors was obtained, which confirmed the cause of the death to
be head injury coupled with manual strangulation and that manner of death
was homicidal. In these circumstances, offence under Section 302 IPC was
found to have been committed and FIR was accordingly registered.
3.3 During investigation, statements of eye-witnesses namely
Vishnu Dutt (father of the deceased), Kela Devi (mother of deceased)
Page 2 of 5
2 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 04:15:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022997
CRM-M-61734-2023 2024:PHHC: 022997
besides their neighbour Man Mohan son of Rohtash were recorded. The
parents Vishnu Dutt and Kela Devi disclosed that their son Rinku was
habitual drunkard; and that on 11.06.2021 at about 10:00 PM, Rinku had
come under the influence of liquor. They had asked him to go to his house.
In the meantime, their other son Hariom (petitioner) also came in the street,
where altercation took place between the two brothers and out of anger,
Hariom (petitioner) had inflicted injuries to Rinku, who fell unconscious.
He was shifted to City Hospital and declared brought dead. They also stated
that at that time, they did not know about the cause of death.
3.4 Hariom (petitioner) was arrested on 15.03.2023. On
interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement admitting his guilt. He
disclosed about the altercation between him and the deceased, during which
deceased had caught his private parts and that with a view to get the same
released, he had pressed the throat of Rinku. He also disclosed that he then
took out a wooden fawda and inflicted injuries with the same on the head
and other body parts of Rinku and later on, burnt the wooden fawda.
Section 201 IPC was added. Poonam (wife of the deceased) had already had
already died in the meantime on 05.03.2023.
3.5 After completion of investigation, final report under Section
173 CrPC was filed. Charges were framed on 19.07.2023. Out of 22
witnesses cited by the prosecution, 7 have already been examined and the
next date of hearing is 11.03.2024.
4. It is submitted by ld. counsel that petitioner has been falsely
implicated after registering the FIR more than 1 year and 9 months of delay
from the date of occurrence. All the material witnesses have turned hostile.
Case of the prosecution is based on the disclosure statement of petitioner,
Page 3 of 5
3 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 04:15:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022997
CRM-M-61734-2023 2024:PHHC: 022997
recorded during police custody, which is not admissible in law; that
petitioner is in custody since 15.03.2023; that nothing was recovered from
him; that trial may take long time to conclude and so, he be granted bail.
5. Ld. State counsel opposed the petition by pointing out
towards gravity of offence and that petitioner in his disclosure statement
admitted the guilt. However, it is conceded that the material witnesses of
the petitioner namely Vishnu Dutt and Kela Devi, parents of the petitioner
as well as that of the deceased, have not supported the prosecution.
6. I have considered submissions of both the sides and have
appraised the record.
7. Initial version of the prosecution was that Rinku died due to
fall on the surface under the influence of liquor and had sustained injuries.
This version is based on the statement of Poonam, wife of the deceased,
who has already expired.
8. FIR has been registered after 1 year and 9 months of the
occurrence, based upon the postmortem report and the opinion given by the
Board of Doctors, as per which cause of death of Rinku is head injury
coupled with manual strangulation and that it was a case of homicide.
9. In the investigation, the parents of the deceased namely,
Vishnu Dutt and Kela Devi are stated to have disclosed to the police that it
is their other son i.e. Hariom (petitioner), who had caused injuries to the
deceased, resulting in his death. However, Kela Devi as well as Vishnu
Dutt, during their testimony before the Court as PW2 and PW3
respectively, have not supported the prosecution case at all and were to be
declared hostile, as is evident from their statements, copies of which have
been placed on record.
Page 4 of 5 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 04:15:57 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022997 CRM-M-61734-2023 2024:PHHC: 022997
10. PWs Ramesh son of Lakhmi Chand, and Man Mohan son of
Rohtash have also not supported the prosecution version as is evident from
the copies of their statements placed on record. Prosecution is, thus, left
with disclosure statement of the petitioner, which admittedly was recorded
in police custody, after arresting the petitioner. It has been admitted by
PW5 HC Amin, the witnesses to the disclosure statement that no recovery
was effected from the petitioner pursuant to his disclosure statement.
11. Having noticed the aforesaid facts and circumstances, but
without commenting anything further on merits of the case, this Court is of
the view that no purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner detained,
who is already in custody since 15.03.2023 and as trial may take time to
conclude. Consequently, petition is allowed. Petitioner is admitted to
regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, by observing
usual terms and conditions.
19.02.2024 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Vivek JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
2. Whether reportable? No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022997
Page 5 of 5
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 04:15:57 :::
[ad_2]